Slovacia website!

Czech, actually. There is a small dictionary for the Czech phrases at http://mzak.webzdarma.cz/english.php

Here’s my Lola in a typical position. Her look, location and unmistakable happiness undoubtedly mean that, when i took the picture, i was totally fed up with her on my lap and needed to do something really important (going to the loo or getting another beer, or both if i was in a really efficient state of mind) really soon.

Best thing about Lola is that she’s really smart. Because she realised i no longer cared for her scratching me, she has now discovered it’s a lot of fun to bruise me. She lays down on my lap, puts her head against my upper arm, and starts bashing/pushing really hard. Purrrrr-BASH……. purrrrr-BASH….. purrrrr…..wrrrrrrrrr. She gets really cuddly when i’m sore enough.

Well, three years ago at least i had no problems visiting CMF (or CDF for that matter) from Beijing. As for CMF’s nationalism: it’s definately encouraged by YDX himself. In fact, if my memory serves right, that was one of the main reasons why CDF was set up in the first place.

I calculated that with the transfer rate some time ago on another thread, i can’t seem to find it in the archives unfortunately.

Here’s the quickest reference i could find on the probe/drogue refuelling rate, on a British RAF/MoD pdf at http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/documents/Pt2/Pt2Ch10P-UnitedKingdom.pdf
The Tristar and VC10 probe-equipped tankers of the RAF have a maximum fuel transfer rate of 2200kg/minute, or 4845 lbs/minute. That makes a boom refueller only some 25% faster than a probe refueller. I don’t know if the pumps of a multi-drogue tankers can put maximum pressure on both reels at the same time for multiple refuelling, but it seems that the fuel transfer rate for a multi-point hose tanker is actually higher than on a boom tanker. It just can’t transfer all that fuel to one single aircraft.

This means that the benefit of the boom is only restricted to one client-per-tanker, and even then it isn’t all that spectaculair: even a big aircraft like the C-17 (how’s conversion going btw?) gets it’s fuel only 25% faster from a boom than it would get it from a hose. Considering the fact that a hose-and-drogue system is also far more flexible than a boom system (never heard of a buddy boom pod :D) and that from what i know maneuvring an aircraft in place to recieve a boom in it’s receptacle is pretty exhaustive as well… i can totally see the fitting of a hose/probe refuelling kit on the F-35 rather than a boom receptacle.

It has to be said that it was in the early 1950s when SAC decided it went for boom refuelling. I can imagine the difference in fuel transfer rates back then were far more than the 25% we see today between the KC-135 and the RAF’s tankers.

George,
You must differentiate between actual prototypes (T10M-1 and T10M-2), development aircraft (the remainder of the T10M series) and the three actual production aircraft. I guess Fomin didn’t make that distinction in the book you’re getting your info from.
Those three (86, 87 and 88) were not built for Sukhoi itself to toy around with like with 701 to 712, but for the VVS. Initially for tests at Akhtubinsk, but as Ken explained now with the Russkie Vityazi.

The construction numbers i’ve mentioned are all from my own notes. While the numbers are not sequential per se, the proto- and development aircraft (T10M-1 to T10M-12) are all in the 101/111 series, with 88r being the first one identified in the 123 series. While the ‘last five’ of the c/n don’t have any appearant order, they ARE issued sequentually. Airframe 11104 definately precedes 12304. This in my eyes clears up the issues you raise in post #19, where you say:

In 1996 KnAAPO shipped three production std a/c (86,87 and 88) to Valery Chkalov Flight Testing Center in Akhtubinsk. But by 1995 KnAAOPO had produced 12 Su-35: tails 701 to 712. Off these 708,709 and 710 had been build in 93-94 and “served as yardstick for the series production.” So are we to understand that 86, 87 and 88 were built BEYOND the 12 ??? in one year? 1996 or are they the same yardstick a/c. Thats why I had earlier stated that there are only 11 Su-35 left.

Although not all proto/development types are currently accounted for, there is evidence for 12+3 Su-27M aircraft, the latter three of which were appearantly delivered to GLITs at Akhtubinsk in 1996.

Looks a bit like the small RWR antenna you can find on some Hinds.

Yeah, from the Beetle Bailey cartoons by Mort Drucker.

Copyrights for the cartoon above are undoubtedly with some military magazine in the People’s Republic of China 😀

Especially about the first operational netcentric interceptor: the Tu-128M 😀